DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow

[Link8909]

Let me ask you a question: did you ever think when watching ENT that Chuck went overboard on constantly bringing up the Valekian cure, or over on VOY that Chuck when overboard on constantly bringing up Neelix, or that Chuck when overboard with his hate of TNG season 1?

If so, fair enough. If not, may I suggest that your love of Star Trek Discovery is blinding you to a ''flaw'' that Chuck has had since day 1?

And whilst I may not seem it, I do respect your opinion too. But I also maintain that Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Picard are by far the worse things to ever happen to this franchise. I mean yeah, there have been low points. Code of Honor, Profit and Lace. But those were singular episodes. These are whole shows.

With the Valekian cure, no and I agree with how he feels about it, with Neelix, yes I think he does take it far, there are points when I do agree and I won't defend Neelix, but thats it.

And no, my love of Star Trek Discovery or Star Trek Picard has not blinded me to those series flaws, and I even have agreed on many of Chucks point that he has made on those series, I'm not apposed to criticism, but while they're not perfect (which no series of Star Trek is) they're really aren't the worst either, you've even pointed to two that are really terrible and actually offensive, and there are plenty more like those that are even worse like "Unexpected".

One of the reasons I don't get as angry as everyone else seems to be is because I just don't want to be like that, I don't want to play into the angry nerd stereotype that has plagued the internet, I don't want to be yet another loud obnoxious voice crying out of every little thing these new series do wrong, I don't want to make the same arguments that people were doing thirty years ago with The Next Generation, I don't want to hate the new thing because it's not doing what I personally want it to be, I don't want to hate the people who work on this franchise or the franchise itself, I don't want to be an entitled fanboy, I don't want to be this version of a Star Trek fan.

A small part of me does wish like with my OCD, I could just wave my hand and be as angry and hate-filled as everyone else, so that I could fit in with everyone else, but I can't, I can't hate something that I personally like just so I can be like everyone else.

[CrypticMirror]

Speaking of sounding moodier, Chuck sounds real done with it.

These reviews have a different tone, but it's a different circumstance than with mostly all other Trek stuff he's covered. They aren't as retroly comprehensive with the character assessments etc.

Well before Chuck can do a character assessment, the writers would have to give their characters some actual character. They are not characters, they are flat line reading machines. Only Pike has any form of character, and that is more because TOS already did the heavy lifting on that score.

[Dargaron]

Also in the episode "Ethics" Worf's spinal cord was crushed by a barrel and either needed aid from neurological devices strapped to his thighs (which didn't fully give him back control), or a dangerous procedure still in testing and with only a success rate of thirty-seven percent.

So I do agree that Star Trek has always had people with disabilities and that even with the advance science of the franchise there are still things that cannot be simply fixed, and I think it's great that Discovery has this guy in a wheelchair apart of the crew.

Honestly, in order for the Star Trek future to work without going full transhumanism, you need to assume that the Federation as a whole has a deep-seated Luddite tendency towards certain avenues of technology. Similar to how genetic engineering is simply off the table (despite the lack of wealth and status disparities that the technology might exacerbate), no one is allowed to look into using the transporter for anything beyond moving objects from point A to point B.

In Rascals, we see that the transporter is capable of entirely reshaping the human body, even down to Picard's artificial heart (which is presumably fitted for an adult body rather than a teen). In Tuvix, we see that it can merge and split individuals basically on command, with all the kinds of terrible implications that carries.

The Federation of TNG era has a fairly strong fetishization (for lack of a better word) of "nature" and "natural processes." You see this in the more dogmatic interpretations of the Prime Directive, where any interference in the "natural" course of a species' development is a grave wrong that must be avoided at any cost.

RE: the tone of Discovery reviews: IMO, there isn't nearly the same level of vitriol that Enterprise or Voyager (or even early TNG) received. None of the episodes so far have gotten the thorough drubbing Chuck piled on Code of Honor (which absolutely deserved getting dunked on, don't get me wrong!). The impression I've gotten is that SFDebris finds Discovery less distasteful and more flavorless: it doesn't provoke as much of a negative reaction as most of Enterprise, but it also doesn't engender a positive reaction either.

[Link8909]

Honestly, in order for the Star Trek future to work without going full transhumanism, you need to assume that the Federation as a whole has a deep-seated Luddite tendency towards certain avenues of technology. Similar to how genetic engineering is simply off the table (despite the lack of wealth and status disparities that the technology might exacerbate), no one is allowed to look into using the transporter for anything beyond moving objects from point A to point B.

In Rascals, we see that the transporter is capable of entirely reshaping the human body, even down to Picard's artificial heart (which is presumably fitted for an adult body rather than a teen). In Tuvix, we see that it can merge and split individuals basically on command, with all the kinds of terrible implications that carries.

The Federation of TNG era has a fairly strong fetishization (for lack of a better word) of "nature" and "natural processes." You see this in the more dogmatic interpretations of the Prime Directive, where any interference in the "natural" course of a species' development is a grave wrong that must be avoided at any cost.

That makes sense, It seems more that technology is used in Star Trek to aid than to advance a person, and I think this also has a mentality of absolute power corrupts absolutely like with the reasoning for the genetic engineering ban, as well the remaining natural mentality as you say, however it looks like one can get upgraded as it were as from what I know Ensign Rutherford on Star Trek Lower Decks implants were voluntary, and from interviews that this will get explored in season 2.

RE: the tone of Discovery reviews: IMO, there isn't nearly the same level of vitriol that Enterprise or Voyager (or even early TNG) received. None of the episodes so far have gotten the thorough drubbing Chuck piled on Code of Honor (which absolutely deserved getting dunked on, don't get me wrong!). The impression I've gotten is that SFDebris finds Discovery less distasteful and more flavorless: it doesn't provoke as much of a negative reaction as most of Enterprise, but it also doesn't engender a positive reaction either.

I see what you mean, and while I do enjoy Discovery for what it is, I think compared to the other Star Trek series overall, it's more middle of the road, it's not amazing but it's not terrible either, and the things that aren't good are more pet-peeves than outright terrible that constructive feedback would help the creative team work them out and improve the series.

I'm mostly just tired of the overall negativity that seems to dominate the franchise and series discussions as of late, and being a Star Trek fan these days just isn't fun anymore.

[CharlesPhipps]

Just so we're clear on this: Are you telling me that there is a magical place in the Federation where all injuries are healed and that does not contradict the previously established canon before the STD-reboot? (which is what I have decided to call it now). Gee, if only Worf could have gone there when his spine was broken, that would have been easy.

Weirdly, I found it easier to believe that the Federation could heal spine injuries than reverse the various horrifying mutations that are a weekly issue.

[CharlesPhipps]

But the So'na didn't occupy the Baku planet you say?[/i] Well, I say to that: Bullshit. It was established that only ten years of normal exposure was going to reverse their condition. And the So'na are going to do what exactly? Wait around as they slowly die off under the smug gaze of those who exiled them in the first place? They have Enterprise-E level ships, an alliance with the Dominion and at least two slave races under their command ffs. Of course they ended up wiping the Baku off the planet. Maybe even immediately after the Enterprise left which is why Picard spent his retirement sulking on his vineyard as an old man instead of humping Anij as a young man again.

Given the Dominion left, the So'na are not exactly in a good spot.

I also am sure the Federation parked their spa on the other continent.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Speaking of sounding moodier, Chuck sounds real done with it.

These reviews have a different tone, but it's a different circumstance than with mostly all other Trek stuff he's covered. They aren't as retroly comprehensive with the character assessments etc.

Well before Chuck can do a character assessment, the writers would have to give their characters some actual character. They are not characters, they are flat line reading machines. Only Pike has any form of character, and that is more because TOS already did the heavy lifting on that score.

I know what you're getting at, but I don't really feel for assessing things as "nothing." I understand the lack of variance, but it often undermines the broad tablet.

Personally I don't think that writer assessments are the utmost essential to Chuck's digging. Author interpretations are best considered discretely when giving your own fleshed out opinions on things. I just mean you shouldn't assess the character vicariously for all intents and purposes.

[TGLS]

Let me ask you a question: did you ever think when watching ENT that Chuck went overboard on constantly bringing up the Valekian cure, or over on VOY that Chuck when overboard on constantly bringing up Neelix, or that Chuck when overboard with his hate of TNG season 1?

Absolutely. But Chuck is funny while he does it which makes it tolerable and entertaining as opposed to irritating.

[Freeverse]

I usually avoid discussions of Discovery because it makes me just... extremely tired. I had to drop Chuck's reviews of the series because they're, frankly, upsetting. And before you chime in with "Well, what about Voyager and Enterprise? Those reviews could get really angry, too!", yes, I feel the same way about those reviews, when they did get really angry. It seems to me he's softened on Voyager, and honestly Enterprise is the only show that actually deserves that level of vitriol... sometimes. But I sincerely believe he's not at his best when something gets under his skin. I hold no enmity for Chuck, he produces so many videos that I can easily just skip the ones that are going to upset me, and he deserves a chance to cut loose now and then.

And just to stress that this is unrelated to me being a fan of the subject, I feel this way about his Lost World review. A movie that I have thought about precisely one time in my whole life before his review came out, and the thought was mostly just "oh, ok, I guess there are dinosaurs again". I felt some suspense at the hanging car moment, and I thought it was kind of fun, in a campy b-movie sort of way, when the girl does gym-kata on a raptor. That's the fullest extent of my defense of the movie, but I was still bothered by the review, just because of how it was approached. Again, no hate on Chuck, it was just that I didn't enjoy the work in this case.

But I feel like I have something to contribute to the conversation about disability, so I want to focus on that. I don't feel like diving into my full medical history, but I will say that I have a certain chemical imbalance that has affected my life a great deal over the years. And as someone who struggles with a condition that, make no bones about it, limits me, I take umbrage with the idea that people like me simply wouldn't exist in a positive future. People should not be erased, and I feel like that's exactly what we would be doing if we were to presume that disabilities can simply be "fixed" in a sufficiently advanced, sufficiently moral future.

That being said; there actually are, in fact, disabilities that can be reversed, to one degree or another. The specific issue that I have, is not the idea that medical science can minimize the problems that some of us are born with or that some of us are afflicted with later in life, but the arrogant notion that literally all of them will be. There are things I just can't do, that I would happily undergo a safe procedure to be able to do, and I imagine that is the case for many people who are disabled in one way or another. I can't speak for everyone, but I have heard others express this same sentiment. But not everyone feels the same way, either. I have also heard people who wouldn't want to be "normal", regardless of if it would grant them increased agency in certain ways.

Now, the opposite bothers me as well. The idea that "disability is a social construct" is frankly... just disgustingly patronizing. It's misery porn of the highest order, and with real living people as the subjects. And I hate that there are other disabled people with this exact mindset, because it's a perversion of the truth, and a very important truth. The world is not made for disabled people. There is a socially constructed component to disability. For one thing, what exactly constitutes a disability is, ultimately, something that we just kind of decided on, and have tweaked one way or the other over the years. Just look at the way that mental health professionals have shifted the way that they talk about and treat people on the autism spectrum.

So, I think that it's important that we don't stand in the way of people who would choose to change something about themselves, but it's just as important that we stop shaming people for the way they are. And I think that there would be some folks who, right now, would make that change, but might change their mind if that shame weren't so ingrained into us by a society that was built in a way that often fails to even consider people with disabilities. And it's not a monolith, it's not like every singe part of society is hostile to disabled people, but there are definitely buildings that weren't constructed with disabilities in mind, and the way that we talk about workers rights often leaves disabled folks out of the discussion, and other things like that.

Ultimately, It doesn't make any sense to me that Star Trek should be completely devoid of disabled people, and one of the reasons for that is the fact that a big part of Star Trek's optimism is centered around the embracing of diversity. But the idea that all forms of disability would simply not exist isn't optimism; it's fantasy. And, you know what? That's fine, too. There's plenty of room for fantasy, even in Star Trek. So if part of what appeals to you is the fantasy of a world where your life would be completely different, then I say you belong in the fandom just as much as any of us. But what appeals to me is not that I would have a fundamentally different brain or body in the future, it's that my differences wouldn't have been looked down on, but instead that I would have gotten the help I needed much sooner in life. And I think there should be room for both of us in Star Trek, so I say that making people with disabilities visible in the utopian future shouldn't be frowned upon.

Also, no matter how advanced the medicine is in the universe of Star Trek, right now, down here on earth, in reality, there are still a lot of people with disabilities. And giving them characters they can see in the utopian future who are similar to them is a thousand times more important than any number of canon or continuity based worldbuilding details could ever be. Really, I love canon and continuity quite a bit, I mean, I read comics for Uatu's sake... But I love actual, real-ass human beings living here on earth a lot more.

Well, that was really long. I look forward to being ignored by everyone except some concern-trolling crypto-fascist who just made their account, saying that if I care so much about representation that I should be worried about the implications of there being "so few" straight white dudes in the future.

[CrypticMirror]

Seeing someone with mobility issues in Star Trek, speaking as someone with mobility issues, does not offer me representation. It just depresses me that even in fiction there is no escape of the prison of my malfunctioning flesh. I don't want to turn on tv and see someone in a wheelchair on a spaceship, because that just makes me feel that there is no relief no matter how great tech will get. The representation I want is a line of dialogue about how easy it was to fix the disability. I see no representation value in seeing someone trapped in a chair, even in a future where they still have all this magic tech.